1

EVALUATION QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

Office of Evaluation

Measuring Results, Sharing Lessons

Terms of Reference

Synthesis of evidence and lessons on country capacity

strengthening from decentralized evaluations

(2016 - 2020)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Background ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Context .................................................................................................................... 5

2. Purpose of the Synthesis .................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Rationale and Objectives ....................................................................................... 9

2.2 Stakeholders and Users ....................................................................................... 10

3. Synthesis questions, scope and component evaluations ............................................ 10

3.1 Synthesis questions .............................................................................................. 10

3.2 Scope ..................................................................................................................... 11

4. Proposed approach ......................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Synthesis methodology ........................................................................................ 13

4.2. Quality assurance ................................................................................................ 14

5. Organization of the Synthesis ........................................................................................ 15

5.1. Phases and deliverables ..................................................................................... 15

5.2 Synthesis Team composition ............................................................................... 17

5.3 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................... 17

5.4 Communication .................................................................................................... 18

ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................. 19

Annex 1: List of Decentralized Evaluations to be reviewed in the synthesis ......... 19

Annex 2: Evaluation Timeline .................................................................................... 22

Annex 3: WFP Internal Reference Group (IRG) composition ................................... 24

Annex 4: Literature Review ........................................................................................ 25

Annex 5: E-library........................................................................................................ 31

Annex 6: Communication and learning plan ............................................................ 33

2

1. Background

1. The purpose of these terms of reference (TOR) is to guide the conduct of the proposed

Synthesis of Evidence and Lessons on how country capacity strengthening was evaluated by

WFP’s decentralized evaluations from 2016 to 2020.1 More specifically, it aims to provide key

information to stakeholders about the synthesis exercise, to guide the evaluation team,

including specifying expectations during the various phases of the synthesis evaluation.

2. The TOR are structured as follows: section 1 provides information on the context for this

synthesis; section 2 presents the rationale, objectives, stakeholders and main users of the

synthesis; section 3 presents the evaluation questions and scope; section 4 identifies the

approach and methodology; section 5 indicates how the synthesis evaluation will be

organized.

1.1 Introduction

3. In 2016, WFP selected a new model for its evaluation function, combining centralized

evaluation with demand-led decentralized evaluation, in line with Strategic Plan

commitments and related organization strengthening initiatives. WFP’s evaluation plans are

set out in Regional Evaluation Plans and in the triennial programme of work for OEV, which

also includes synthesis reports.

4. Evaluation syntheses are an approach used to highlight issues that cut across different

evaluations, and to address questions using an existing evidence base.2 OEV adheres to the

following definition of evaluation synthesis: a combination and integration of findings from

quality-assessed evaluations to develop higher-level or more comprehensive knowledge and

inform policy and strategic decisions.3

5. Decentralized evaluations are commissioned and managed by country offices, regional

bureau or headquarters-based divisions other than the Office of Evaluation (OEV). They

cover operations4, activities, pilots, themes, transfer modalities or any other area of action

at the sub-national, national or multi-country level. They follow OEV’s guidance, including

impartiality safeguards and quality assurance system.5 They are not presented to the

Executive Board.

6. In 2018, the minimum coverage norm6 for decentralized evaluations set by OEV’s Evaluation

Policy 2016-2021 was revised to ensure that decentralized evaluations are planned and

conducted based on an existing need for evidence, that they have a clear purpose and that

they complement other evaluations within the Country Strategic Plan (CSP) cycle.

Commissioning units select topics or interventions to be evaluated and time the evaluations

1 Between 2016 and 2020, 77 decentralized evaluations have been completed.

2 This also entails that evaluation syntheses generally do not include extensive field-based primary data collection

activities.

3 Adapted from: Wyburn et al (2018) Understanding the Impacts of Research Synthesis: Environmental Science and

Policy Journal, Volume 86, August 2018, pp 72-84.

4 Under WFP’s Integrated Roadmap, operations have gradually been replaced by CSP/ICSPs.

5 WFP Evaluation Policy 2016-2021.

6 Mnimum evaluation coverage norm: At least one decentralized evaluation is planned and conducted within each CSP

and ICSP cycle. Should the CSP or ICSP be extended beyond 5 years, the country office should conduct an additional

decentralized evaluation.

3

so that the results can be used in the preparation of CSP and interim-CSP and to inform

programming decisions. As such, the range of topics and programmatic areas covered within

decentralized evaluations can vary.

7. Since 2016, 77 decentralized evaluations have been completed, as shown in figure 1. The

distribution of decentralized evaluations by region shows that West Africa, Asia and Pacific

and East Africa regions have completed the highest number since 2016.

Figure 1: Completed DEs by region and year of completion (2016 – 2020)

Source: OEV Management Information System (MIS)

8. Over the 2016 – 2020 period, the majority (28%) of decentralized evaluations focused on

school feeding programmes. The second largest set (20%) focused on capacity strengthening

activities, providing a growing body of evidence on the design, implementation and results

of country capacity strengthening (CCS). In decentralized evaluations, country capacity

strengthening is mostly covered along with other activities, such as school feeding for

example.

9. Nutrition activities were the third largest area of focus and asset creation and livelihood

support activities the fourth, followed by unconditional resource transfer and smallholder

agricultural market support (see figure 2 below). As the Regional Bureaux redefine the

priorities for decentralized evaluations, in consultation with country offices and through

their regional evaluation strategies and plans, the range of themes covered is expected to

broaden, with increasing attention to smallholder agriculture market support, emergency

preparedness, climate adaptation and asset creation and livelihood support.7

Figure 2: Decentralized Evaluations by programmatic area of focus (2016 – 2020)

7 WFP Annual Evaluation Report, 2019.

2 1 14

2

3

11

2

1

6

4

7

4

4

1

2

1

4

3

4

4

4

2

4

2

1

2

HQ RBB RBC RBD RBJ RBN RBP

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

4

Source: OEV Management Information System (MIS)

10. The Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development - in particular, Sustainable Development

Goal (SDG) 17, target 17.9 - emphasizes the need to “enhance international support for

implementing effective and targeted capacity building in developing countries and to

support national plans to implement the sustainable development goals.”8 As WFP supports

countries to achieve their SDG targets by 2030 and beyond, the organization is increasingly

transitioning to capacity strengthening as a means of supporting national systems and

recognizes that strong and sustained national capacities are critical to addressing the

multiple causes of hunger and responding to the food security and nutrition needs of

vulnerable populations over the long-term.

11. The corporate policy framework for country capacity strengthening is currently being

reviewed.9 There is an expectation that this process will result in the formulation of a

new/revised policy on country capacity strengthening, and/or a corporate CCS strategy by

2021. This, together with the preparation of the new WFP Strategic Plan (2022 – 2026), make

this synthesis of WFP’s country capacity strengthening in decentralized evaluation very

timely.

12. The synthesis aims to bring together findings on CCS from WFP decentralized evaluations

conducted since 2016, providing learning and generating further evidence on CCS

programming, support WFP to enhance its corporate approach to CCS, as well as to inform

the formulation of a new/ revised capacity development Policy, and/or a corporate CCS

strategy.

13. The evidence generated through the findings, lessons and recommendations of this

synthesis, should be useful to:

i) Enhance the knowledge base on WFP country capacity strengthening and provide an

overarching picture of WFP’s performance in CCS across country offices that

commissioned a decentralized evaluation.

ii) Identify recurrent findings useful to derive lessons on country-capacity

strengthening at country-level and corporately to support country offices in better

engaging and positioning itself as a strategic partner with national Governments.

iii) Inform improved programming, WFP’s forthcoming strategy on country capacity

strengthening or policy update, and relevant corporate guidance.

8 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org.

9 WFP’ 5th Policy Cycle Task Force Meeting, NFRs and forward agenda (internal document).

5%

4%

5%

7%

8%

11%

13%

20%

28%

School meal activities

Capacity strengthening activities

Nutrition activities

Asset creation and livelihood support activities

Unconditional resource transfers to support access to food

Smallholder agricultural market support activities

Emergency preparedness activities

Climate adaptation and risk management activities

Other

5

iv) Contribute to the wider knowledge base by providing lessons and findings to

external stakeholder supporting and engaging in country capacity strengthening

activities.

v) Provide synthesis products of interest to different audiences within WFP, including

Executive Board Members.

14. The synthesis evaluation is scheduled to take place from September 2020 until March 2021.

This synthesis report will be presented for consideration to the WFP Executive Board in June

2021.

1.2 Context

Country Capacity Strengthening in the current WFP context

15. Agenda 2030 speaks to the core mandate and values of the UN and presents both the

opportunity and responsibility for the UN to avail its knowledge, convening power and

expertise to nations in support of its implementation. The WFP Strategic Plan (2017-2021) is

fully aligned with Agenda 2030 and WFP embraces a Whole of Society approach to zero

hunger which means it engages with – and supports capacity strengthening of – a range of

state and non-state actors (civil society, private sector, communities and individuals), as

relevant to context to support the country capacities required to achieve national SDG2 food

security and nutrition objectives and targets, as well as relevant SDG17 objectives.

16. The WFP framework for capacity strengthening recognizes that without supportive policies,

strategies and procedures (enabling environment domain), well-functioning organizations

(organizational domain), and educated, skilled people (individual domain) state and non-

state duty carriers cannot effectively plan, implement and review their efforts to deliver

intended products and services to their target groups. Effective CCS support must therefore

address all three domains, recognizing the interdependencies between them. Single

interventions (e.g., trainings) are not likely to make a significant difference unless they

represent a key leverage point that can shift an entire system’s behaviour.10

17. Applying this holistic and systems-strengthening approach to its interventions, WFP

supports stakeholder capacities through five pathways: (i) policies and legislation; (ii)

institutional effectiveness and accountability; (iii) strategic planning and financing; (iv)

stakeholder programme design and delivery; and (v) engagement and participation of

communities, civil society and private sector.

18. WFP’s Capacity Development Policy update11 adopts the following internationally accepted

definitions:

• ‘Capacity’ is defined as the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to

manage their affairs successfully.

• ‘Capacity development’ is defined as the process whereby people, organizations and

society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain that ability over

time.

19. In the past decade, significant changes in the global debates on capacity development

include: i. the shift from a focus on the skills of individuals to emphasis on the performance

of wider groups or organizations and then to the notion of capacity to deliver results as one

10 WFP Corporate Approach to Country Capacity Strengthening (CCS) – CCS toolkit component 001.

11 WFP Policy on Capacity Development: An Update on Implementation WFP/EB.2/2009/4-B, October 2009.

6

dimension of capacity required to make an organization or system endure, adapt and

perform over time; and, ii. a shift from viewing capacity development as linear and externally

generated, to seeing it as self-organizing, emergent and part of a complex adaptive system.12

20. In WFP’s Strategic Plan 2017-2021 there is evidence of both capacity development and country

capacity strengthening terminologies being used, but most recently in the updated guidance

and CCS toolkit the terminology applied is country capacity strengthening.13

21. The mid-term review of WFP’s Revised Corporate Results Framework14, highlights that while

the CRF incudes 13 activity categories, including country capacity strengthening and

individual capacity strengthening, the latter is among the least used given the lack of

definition. In additional to ‘activity categories’, capacity strengthening is also referred to as a

strategic outcome and as a transfer modality. Further, there is also a lack of clarity as to

what a capacity strengthening transfer is and who should be counted as a direct beneficiary.

There is a need for WFP to develop a framework that better tracks and reports on results in

the “changing lives”/development contexts as WFP has been unable to measure capacity

strengthening results using the existing CRF indicators and approaches.

22. WFP’s Corporate Partnership Strategy (2014-2017)15 highlights WFP’s commitment to

partnerships with partners such as host governments and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) and to support them in developing capacity for designing and implementing

nationally owned hunger solutions. Today, this approach is reflected in Country Strategic

Plans, which have the potential to improve the quality of WFP’s assistance by providing an

opportunity for designing and delivering interventions in line with national priorities and

stakeholders needs and establishing the basis for effective partnerships. Initial stakeholder

engagement began with the Zero Hunger Country Strategic Review, and formulation of WFP

Country Office CSP outcomes is informed by an-depth understanding of relevant capacity

assets and needs.

23. WFP’s Policy on South–South and triangular cooperation (SSTC)16 identifies strengthening

country systems and capacities as one of the guiding principles for WFP’s engagement in

SSTC17. In facilitating South–South and triangular cooperation, WFP focuses on local systems

and institutions to promote the sustainability of food security programmes and local

ownership. At the country and regional level, WFP may receive a request from a host

government for support on capacity strengthening via South-South Cooperation for

technical assistance or country-to-country knowledge exchange and learning. Also, the

12 See footnote 11.

13 The 2004 WFP Policy on Building Country and Regional Capacity, which is still in force, provides a useful perspective

on the longer-term evolution of CCS within the organisation although adopting slightly different terminology.

14 WFP Mid-term Review of the Revised Corporate Results Framework, 2020.

15 WFP Corporate Partnership Strategy –WFP/EB.A/2014/5B, May 2013.

16 The SSTC policy adopts the definition as follows: South-South Cooperation is defined as “A process whereby two or

more developing countries pursue their individual and/or shared national […] objectives through exchanges of

knowledge, skills, resources and technical know-how, and through regional and inter-regional collective actions,

including partnerships involving governments, regional organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector, for

their individual and/or mutual benefit within and across regions. South–South cooperation is not a substitute for, but

rather a complement to, North–South cooperation. Triangular cooperation is defined as a: “[c]ollaboration in which

traditional donor countries and multilateral organizations facilitate South–South initiatives through the provision of

funding, training, and management and technological systems as well as other forms of support.

17 WFP South-South and Triangular Cooperation Policy - WFP/EB.A/2015/5-D, April 2015.

7

Policy on Capacity Development refers to SSTC as offering a possible modality for knowledge

transfer and best practice exchange.

24. CCS support is offered by WFP in response to stakeholder requests for support in

strengthening their own national food security and nutrition systems. WFP can provide

needs-based and context-specific guidance and feedback across a range of areas, through a

systematic and participatory approach that enables stakeholders to strengthen and embed

essential capacities.18

25. WFP has been engaging in country capacity strengthening for years, in humanitarian and

development contexts.19 WFP’s 1994 Mission Statement states that “all assistance – whether

relief, recovery or development – should aim to develop capacities for self-reliance”. Since

then, WFP has made consistent reference to capacity development in its key strategic

documents. In WFP’s first (1998-2001)20 and second (2002-05)21 Strategic and Financial Plans,

this was formulated as promoting “national institution building, and local capacity building

through broad-based participation”. Capacity strengthening was a strategic priority from

WFP’s 2004-2007 Strategic Plan22 onwards, with Strategic Priority 5 aimed at helping

governments establish and manage national food assistance programmes. It was

mainstreamed in subsequent Strategic Plans.

26. Recent lessons learned, and Agenda 2030 provide the organization with an opportunity to

strengthen its conceptual and operational approach to CCS to better contribute to national

SDG efforts and results. In 2016/17, an independent evaluation of WFP’s Policy on Capacity

Development: An Update on Implementation and an internal audit of WFP’s country capacity

strengthening identified several areas where the organization needed to strengthen its

ability to deliver and demonstrate sustainable capacity strengthening results over time.

27. The evaluation of the Policy on Capacity Development23 found that WFP’s capacity

development work, both in terms of funding and continuity of engagement, was constrained

by the agency’s emergency focus and short-term operational horizon. The evaluation

concluded that WFP was supporting capacity development processes in a wide range of

geographic and thematic contexts despite limited corporate support, resources, guidance

and tools. The evaluation cautioned that continuing ‘business as usual’ given the Agenda

2030 and new Strategic Plan commitments would lead to considerable reputational risk.

28. Recommendations from the evaluation included a temporary, multi-stakeholder

management transition team be struck to address this; that Country Offices be provided

with relevant, concrete and practical tools and guidance on capacity strengthening; that WFP

enhance its internal capacity to support work in this area; and heightening the monitoring

and evaluation of, as well as reporting on, WFP’s capacity strengthening work.

18 WFP Capacity Strengthening Supports Nations to End Hunger – Beyond the Annual Performance Report 2018

Series.

19 WFP Corporate Approach to Country Capacity Strengthening, 2016.

20 WFP Strategic and Financial Plan 1998-2001 – WFP/EB.A/97/4-A.

21 WFP Strategic and Financial Plan 2002-2005 – WFP/EB.A/2001/5-B/1.

22 WFP Strategic Plan 2004-2007, WFP/EB.3/2003/4-A/1.

23 Evaluation of WFP’s Policy on Capacity Development: an Update on Implementation, 2016.

8

29. The internal audit found successful examples of country capacity strengthening

intervention, which however in their design and implementation do not make optimal use

of existing corporate concepts, guidance and tools. Ultimately, this results in WFP’s

engagement in country capacity strengthening activities having limited internal and external

visibility. Furthermore, fragmented knowledge management systems and practices, leave

WFP with a corporate culture not always supportive of capacity strengthening. These

shortcomings are closely linked to inadequate systems, processes and practices in the

mobilization and management of both financial and human resources for capacity

strengthening.24

30. Similarly, findings from WFP’s Evaluation of the Corporate Partnership Strategy, completed

in 2017, found the Strategy has not enabled the development of clear incentives for staff

and managers to engage in stronger partnering behaviors or of an explicit communications

strategy for partnerships. The evaluation recommended that a costed action plan to

implement the partnership pillar of the Strategic Plan 2017-2021 is finalized; that a

Partnership Action Plan with specific resources is developed as a mandatory component of

each Country Strategic Plan; that guidance and tools on partnership are revised and

updated; that specific guidance on preparation of country level partnership action plans is

developed; that systems to capture and report on qualitative data on partnering are

strengthened; and that prioritized partnership agreements with UN agencies, NGOs, private

sectors actors, financial institutions and economic organizations are revised.

31. The above-mentioned evaluations will be used as secondary data sources for this synthesis.

32. The spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues to have significant impact on

national food security & nutrition (FSN) programmes. Addressing the food and nutrition

needs of vulnerable populations during the epidemic is critical, and a large proportion of

these populations are assisted through national programmes. WFP Covid-19 guidance on

Country Capacity Strengthening sets out a key objective for WFP to support and empower

national responses that are the first line of defense against the impacts of the COVID-19

crisis.25

Evaluative synthesis in the current WFP context

33. There is growing demand for evidence generation across WFP, and a commitment for

further systematic use of evidence to inform strategic directions, policies and programmes.

Evaluation synthesis are one of the products commissioned by OEV to respond to such

growing interest in and demand for succinct and actionable analysis drawing from

completed evaluations.

34. OEV has commissioned evaluation syntheses in the past: including annual syntheses of

Operations Evaluations from 2014 to 2017; synthesis of impact evaluations on moderate-

acute malnutrition.26

35. In 2017, OEV changed its approach in response to the growing body of quality evaluation

evidence, initially focusing on centralized evaluations. The Synthesis of WFP’s Country

Portfolio Evaluations in the Sahel and Horn of Africa from 2016 to 2018, was presented to

24 WFP Internal Audit of WFP’s Country Capacity Strengthening, 2016

25 WFP Covid-19 Immediate guidance on country capacity strengthening (internal).

26 WFP/EB.1/2018/5-C/Add.1.

9

the Executive Board for consideration in June 2019.27 This was followed by a Synthesis of

Evidence and Lessons from Policy Evaluations, presented to the Executive Board in June

2020.28 In 2020, OEV will initiate this synthesis of decentralized evaluations in reflection of

the growing body of quality of decentralized evaluation evidence to support evidence use

and uptake.

36. In recent years, OEV, has been shifting its focus to respond to country needs and Agenda

2030 priorities by strengthening evidence partnerships and capacities to deliver more

syntheses evaluations29, and to support efforts to ensure a strong use of evaluative evidence

in Country Strategic Plans through the formal OEV review of draft CSP documents. Regional

Evaluation Officers are also increasingly supporting the use of evidence by country offices

by preparing summaries of evaluative evidence to contribute to CSP planning processes.

37. The present synthesis aims to expand the learning from decentralized evaluations and

strengthen OEV’s efforts to provide synthesis products of interest to different target

audiences within WFP, including Executive Board Members. It is timed to inform the

formulation of a new corporate CCS strategy or the update of the 2009 WFP Policy on

Capacity Development, which updates the 2004 policy document “Building Country and

Regional Capacities”, the preparation of the new WFP Strategic Plan (2022 – 2026), and above

all to support the development of the second generation CSPs, which will start to be

presented to the Executive Board for approval in November 2020.

2. Purpose of the Synthesis

2.1 Rationale and Objectives

38. Evaluation syntheses serve the dual objectives of accountability and learning. As such, this

synthesis will provide evidence and learning on WFP's performance in country capacity

strengthening and provide accountability for results to WFP stakeholders. This synthesis

aims to:

• Contribute to learning through the identification of recurring findings, lessons learned

and evidence on CCS across WFP decentralized evaluations, that can generate informed

discussions and contribute to WFP evidence-based strategic and operational decision-

making, guide country offices in designing and delivering effective CCS that engages a

wide range of actors and addresses issues at the individual and organizational levels and

in the enabling environment, through a holistic approach to systems strengthening.

• Provide useful insights into the effectiveness of CCS and report on the performance of

CCS interventions at country-level seeking to capture internal and external enablers that

drive or constraint programme performance, and provide recommendations aimed at

shifting organizational culture to facilitate better positioning and engagement of WFP in

longer-term capacity strengthening.

• Provide evidence to inform the development of the forthcoming new/ revised capacity

development Policy, and/or a corporate CCS strategy, that will outline the corporate

27 WFP/EB.A/2019/7-C.

28 WFP/EB.A/2020/7-D.

29 WFP OEV 2019 Annual Evaluation Report.

10

action plan for effective operationalization of the 2009 Capacity Development Policy and

inform other corporate and country-level processes in relation to CCS.

• Provide useful insights to country offices on potential adjustments to CCS elements in

the design of second-generation Country Strategic Plans.

• Provide a lens to analyze and interpret issue relating to CCS and serve as a secondary

source of evidence for CSP evaluations, which by design include a CCS dimension.

• Serve an accountability purpose through exploring the extent of management response

to recommendations on CCS from decentralized evaluations.

2.2 Stakeholders and Users

39. The synthesis will seek the views of, and be useful to, a range of WFP’s internal and external

stakeholders. The primary internal stakeholders and intended audience of the synthesis are

the WFP CCS programme and policy owners responsible to set WFP strategic and operational

direction and develop normative guidance, as well as Regional Bureaux (RB) and Country

Offices (CO) who primarily address food insecurity and malnutrition through CCS activities.

WFP Senior Management, and the Executive Board members are also primary users of this

synthesis.

40. As secondary audience, the synthesis will be of interest to national governments, donor

government agencies, other UN agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil

society organizations (CSOs).

3. Synthesis questions, scope and component evaluations

3.1 Synthesis questions

41. The synthesis will address seven main questions, which are geared to explore evaluation

results at country and corporate level. The synthesis team will further develop and tailor these

questions during the inception phase of the synthesis exercise.

i) To what extent has the design of country capacity strengthening interventions been relevant to national development priorities? To what extent have the approaches pursued by WFP contributed to the successful positioning of WFP in light of the current WFP strategic Plan?

ii) What are the main contributions that WFP has made to strengthen the capacities of state and non-state actors?

iii) What are the common issues and potential opportunities most recurrently highlighted across decentralized evaluations regarding CCS intervention design and implementation? To what extent are these issues reflected in CCS corporate guidance?

iv) What internal and external factors contributed to positive or negative results in CCS implementation? Are there particular programmes areas and contexts in which the CCS approach has worked better and why?

v) To what extent has WFP’s approach to country capacity strengthening contributed to achieving sustainable, strengthened capacities at the environment, institutional and/or individual level?

vi) What are the broad principles and lessons from CCS that emerge that should inform WFP's engagement with state and non-state actors in the context of the Agenda 2030?

11

vii) What is the extent of implementation of the actions agreed in the final management response by the targeted responsible entities in relation to CCS activities? What actions have been taken to implement the recommendations?

42. This synthesis will also note the extent to which attention to gender equality, women’s

empowerment and equity in programming has led to enhanced capacities.

43. At inception stage, the synthesis team will refine and prioritize the evaluation questions, in

agreement with OEV.

3.2 Scope

44. This synthesis will include all decentralized evaluations that include country capacity

strengthening interventions, in line with the following criteria:

• Evaluation type: decentralized evaluations commissioned and managed by country

offices, regional bureau or Headquarters-based divisions.

• Time period: decentralized evaluations completed over the time period 2016-2020.

• Quality of evaluation: decentralized evaluations assessed by OEV’s post-hoc quality

assessment (PHQA) system as either meeting or exceeding requirements.30

• Type of activity category31: decentralized evaluations whereby country capacity

strengthening activities were carried out by WFP, and whereby country capacity

strengthening has been adopted as a transfer modality.

45. A preliminary shortlisting of evaluation reports was carried out based on decentralized

evaluations assessed by OEV’s post-hoc quality assessment (PHQA) system as either meeting

or exceeding requirements,32 which resulted in the identification of 40 reports33 to be

included in the synthesis.

46. As the information contained in OEV’s management information system in relation to activity

categories covered in decentralized evaluations is manually tagged, the coverage of CCS

activities across decentralized evaluations will have to be reviewed. As such, the evaluation

team will be expected to produce a synthesis method note for the refinement of the scoping

30 Since 2016, OEV has used an outsourced post-hoc quality assessment mechanism, through which independent

assessors rate the quality of all completed WFP evaluations against WFP’s own evaluation quality standards, which are

based on international professional evaluation standards and include the requirements for evaluation set by the United

Nations System-Wide Action Plan on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UNSWAP).

31 Activity categories are presented in annex 1 of WFP’s Revised Corporate Results Framework (2017 2021)

WFP/EB.2/2018/5-B/Rev.1.

32 Since 2016, OEV has used an outsourced post-hoc quality assessment mechanism, through which independent

assessors rate the quality of all completed WFP evaluations against WFP’s own evaluation quality standards, which are

based on international professional evaluation standards and include the requirements for evaluation set by the United

Nations System-Wide Action Plan on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UNSWAP).

33 In the period 2019-2020, there are 20 additional completed decentralized evaluations that have not been assessed

by post-hoc quality assessment.

12

protocol including the inclusion/ exclusion criteria used to finalise sample of reports that will

be included in the synthesis during the inception phase.

47. To determine and finalise the total number of evaluations to be included in the synthesis

scope, the team will undertake a first level screening of all 40 evaluation reports (presented

in annex 1), based on the extent to which CCS is covered. Evaluation reports are listed by

their commissioning bureau and country, title, evaluation type, completion date and post-

hoc quality assessment result.

48. In the period 2019-2020, 20 additional decentralized evaluations have been completed.

However, these evaluations have not yet been assessed by OEV’s post-hoc quality

assessment mechanism. The inclusion of these reports in the scope of the synthesis will be

determined after the above-mentioned first level screening is applied, through which the

evaluation team will also determine whether the evidence on CCS provides a rich body of

evaluative insights for the synthesis.

49. Should the CCS evidence from the screening of the 40 reports be limited, the evaluation

team may be asked to undertake a second level screening of the 20 additional reports to

assess the extent to which CCS is covered. Depending on the outcome of this screening, the

team will either apply a light touch review to assess the extent to which the individual

decentralized evaluations meet quality standards prior to its inclusion in the synthesis scope,

or alternatively, use the evidence to add descriptive information to supplement or nuance

fully fledge findings emerging and established from the analysis of the other evaluations in

the universe.

50. Capacity strengthening is conceived as means/driver to achieve results in a programmatic

area, and usually accompanied by (at least) one activity. Within WFP’s Revised Corporate

Results Framework, capacity strengthening foresees two activity categories - individual

capacity strengthening and institutional capacity strengthening. Decentralized evaluations

can cover more than one programmatic intervention, and the final sample selected for the

synthesis will comprise mainly of evaluations that cover country capacity strengthening as a

cross-cutting theme related to another programmatic interventions (for example, capacity

strengthening in relation to school meals and nutrition). Assessment of evaluation results in

relation to the specific programmatic areas will not be part of the synthesis scope to keep

the focus as tightly as possible on CCS drivers, modalities etc.

51. CCS interventions are cross-cutting in WFP’s five strategic objectives.34 Furthermore, as CCS

activities are often implemented with national partners, the synthesis shall take into account

the various engagements and modalities through which CCS is implemented.

52. The time period covered by the synthesis falls under WFP Strategic Plans 2014-2017 and

2017-2021, as well as two distinct WFP Results Framework (Strategic Results Framework

2014-2016 and Corporate Results Framework 2017-2021). The synthesis team is therefore

34 WFP Strategic Plan 2017-2021.

13

expected to take into consideration the evolution and different positioning of CCS

interventions in time, in the analysis and results of the synthesis.

53. The synthesis is expected to draw from a broad and diverse body of information, evaluative

evidence, primary and secondary data. The main data sources are presented in annex 5:

54. Primary data gathered for the synthesis will mainly come from interviews with WFP

stakeholders.

55. The synthesis team is not expected to carry out a new set of evidence quality reviews for all

the decentralized evaluations included in the synthesis, but to take into account and rely on

the results of the independent post-hoc evaluation quality assessment system used by

OEV.35 Nonetheless, should specific issues or discrepancies relating to evidence quality

emerge at the analysis stage, the synthesis team is expected to highlight and probe them

further as needed.

4. Proposed approach

4.1 Synthesis methodology

56. The fully-fledged synthesis methodology will be developed during the Inception Phase of

the exercise. Key features of the design are expected to be:

• Confirmation of final sample of evaluations.

• Development of a comprehensive analytical framework, which responds to the synthesis

questions.

• Systematic analysis via (electronic or manual methods) of the component evaluation

reports, including data extraction and coding.

• Primary data gathering through interviews with key stakeholders, such as evaluation

managers of relevant decentralized evaluations, CCS programme and policy advisors

both at HQ, country and regional level, and South-South cooperation regional focal

points to verify and deepen data from component evaluations.

• Secondary data gathering with structured analysis of documentation linked to the

synthesis questions.

57. Secondary methods should apply the same method and analytical framework where

feasible; where this is not feasible, it should apply a structured framework to ensure

consistency and rigor of data collection.

58. The primary approaches to be adopted by this synthesis exercise are systematic and

inductive. These will be operationalised as follows:

• Systematic: applying structured analytical fields to data sources, to ensure consistent

and transparent extraction of evidence, and to ensure that findings are fully traceable

back to the body of evidence.

35 The assumption being that each decentralized evaluation and related content of the management response

underwent multiple rounds of reviews, inputs, stakeholder feedback and quality assurance during the drafting before

it’s approval by the relevant commissioner.

14

• Inductive: Pre-defining an initial set of categories for analysis which correspond to the

analytical framework but allowing other important categories and themes to emerge as

the evidence base consolidates. Thus, categories may be merged, adapted or adjusted

in response to higher- or aggregate-level themes emerging.

59. The synthesis team is also expected to work in an iterative manner with OEV by submitting

a synthesis protocol and analytical approach that may evolve and be refined during the

course of the synthesis in light of how evidence will cluster around specific areas of interest.

60. An additional deliverable of this synthesis will be a short method note (to be featured in

annex) to describe the methodology followed to carry out the synthesis.

61. The methodology should reflect the standards for independence and impartiality, in line

with WFP’s commitments under its Evaluation Policy 2016-2021.

62. Based on the analyses from the desk review and additional primary information, this

synthesis report is expected to present key lessons, conclusions and recommendations to:

a) introduce new, or validate existing insights into WFP CCS programme and policy design,

and implementation processes at the country-level; b) introduce new, or validate existing,

insights into how WFP learns and drives changes that informed by decentralized evaluation

results on CCS; c) put forward recommendations to CCS policy owners and programme

implementers.

63. Ethical consideration shall be taken into account in the methodology. All members of the

synthesis team will abide by the 2016 UNEG Norms and Standards and the 2020 UNEG

Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. The synthesis team will also commit to signing Annex 9 of

the Long-Term Agreement regarding confidentiality, Internet and Data Security Statement.

4.2. Quality assurance

64. WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system sets out processes with in-built steps for quality

assurance and templates for evaluation products, including synthesis. The quality assurance

system will be systematically applied during this synthesis.

65. The synthesis team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and

accuracy) throughout the analytical and reporting phases. OEV also expects that all

deliverables from the synthesis team are subject to a thorough quality assurance review by

the commissioned company to maintain corporate quality of evaluation-related products.

66. Quality assurance of the evaluation products will be conducted by the Office of Evaluation.

This quality assurance process does not interfere with the views and independence of the

synthesis team but ensures the synthesis report provides the necessary evidence in a clear

and convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.

15

5. Organization of the Synthesis

5.1. Phases and deliverables

67. The synthesis is structured in five phases summarized in the table below. The synthesis team

will be involved in phases 2 to 5.

16

Table 1: Summary timeline – Synthesis

Main Phases Timeline

Tasks and Deliverables

1.Preparatory Aug – Sep

2020

Development of synthesis questions

Identification of evaluation universe/library preparation

Quality assurance of component evaluations

Final TOR

Constitution of Internal Reference Group

Synthesis Team and/or firm selection & contract

2. Inception Oct – Nov

2020

Briefing of Synthesis Team

Document review

Refine Synthesis Questions

Confirm evaluation universe (protocols for

inclusion/exclusion) and evidence quality

Develop Inception Note including analytical framework,

full methodology, synthesis organization

3. Synthesis

preparation

Nov – Dec

2020

Data extraction and coding

Document review

Interviews

Validation of coded data

Higher level analysis

4. Reporting Jan – Mar

2021

Report Drafting

Comments Process

Validation and Learning Workshop

Final synthesis report

5. Dissemination

Mar – Jun

2021

Editing and formatting

Two-page summary brief development

Management Response preparation36

Executive Board discussion

36 The preparation of the management response is the responsibility of senior management, in particular of the CCS

unit.

17

5.2 Synthesis Team composition

68. The synthesis will be conducted by at least a team leader and a data analyst. The team leader

requires experience in the following areas:

• Minimum 10 years of professional evaluation experience

• Proven technical expertise in country capacity strengthening activities and modalities

• Proven experience with synthesis methods and approaches and prior experience of

designing and conducting evaluation syntheses

• Proven experience with qualitative and quantitative data analysis

• Strong analytical skills and ability to identify patterns and divergences in findings and

strategic implications

• Excellent English writing skills, with ability to express synthesised/summarised messages

accurately

69. Ability to fully comprehend, analyse and assess evaluation reports in French and Spanish is

required.

5.3 Roles and Responsibilities

70. This synthesis is managed by WFP OEV. Federica Zelada, Evaluation Officer, has been

appointed as the evaluation manager (EM). Her responsibilities include drafting the TOR;

selecting and contracting the synthesis team; preparing and managing the budget; setting

up the internal reference group; conducting the 1st level quality assurance of the synthesis

products and soliciting WFP stakeholders’ feedback on draft products.; providing access to

all component evaluations and related material; draft report.

71. The EM will be the main interlocutor between the synthesis team, represented by the team

leader, and WFP counterparts to ensure a smooth implementation process.

72. Deborah McWhinney, Senior Evaluation Officer, will provide second level quality assurance.

The Deputy Director of Evaluation will approve the final synthesis products on satisfactorily

meeting of WFP evaluation quality standards, which are expected to be systematically

applied throughout the synthesis process.

73. Under overall guidance from the Team Leader (TL), the team’s responsibilities include:

• Finalize and submit for review the synthesis methodology and protocol for data

extraction and analysis;

• Develop a synthesis matrix; conduct in-depth reviews of the full body of decentralized

evaluations (2016-20), their related management response matrices and

recommendations database;

• Carry out key informants’ interviews; draft the synthesis report for feedback and

discussion at an internal virtual validation workshop;

• Submit the revised draft synthesis to OEV and address WFP comments before finalisation.

74. The main body of the final report is expected not to exceed 20/25 pages or 7,500 words.

18

75. An Internal Reference Group composed of selected WFP stakeholders will be established to

review and comment on the draft synthesis report, be available for interviews with the

synthesis team and attend the validation and learning workshop.

5.4 Communication

76. All synthesis products will be produced in English. A communication plan will be set out

including details about how to communicate the synthesis report within and outside WFP.

The summary report along with the management response to the synthesis

recommendations will be presented to the WFP Executive Board in June 2021. The final

synthesis report will be posted on the public WFP website and OEV will ensure dissemination

of lessons through the annual evaluation report.

77. The relevant Headquarter division and the Regional Evaluation Units will be encouraged to

circulate the final synthesis report with their staff, with WFP country offices and WFP external

stakeholders.

19

ANNEXES

Annex 1: List of Decentralized Evaluations to be reviewed in the synthesis

N. Regional

Bureau Country Title Type

Completion

year

PHQA

rating

1 RBB Bangladesh Evaluation of USDA McGovern Dole School Feeding Programme Evaluation 2015-2017 Activity 2018 62

2 RBB Bangladesh Mid-Term Evaluation of McGovern Dole School Feeding Programme 2015-2017 Activity 2017 70

3 RBB Cambodia Evaluation of McGovern Dole School Feeding Programme Evaluation 2013 - 2016 Activity 2018 66

4 RBB India Endline evaluation for TPDS Reforms project in Bhubaneswar urban and rural Activity 2019 64

5 RBB Laos Mid-Term Evaluation of McGovern Dole School Feeding Programme 2015-2017 Activity 2017 71

6 RBB Nepal Mid-Term Evaluation of McGovern Dole School Feeding Programme 2014-2016 Activity 2017 69

7 RBB Philippines

Evaluation of Disaster Preparedness and Response/Climate Change Adaptation

Activities Operation 2018

69

8 RBC Algeria

Evaluation of the Nutrition Components of the Protected Relief and Recovery

Operation 200301 Activity 2018

73

9 RBC Jordan

Evaluation of WFP’s General Food Assistance to Syrian Refugees in Jordan from 2015

to mid-2018 Activity 2018

77

10 RBC Pakistan

Evaluation of Food Assistance to conflict-affected population in Pakistan from 2015-

2017 Activity 2018

64

11 RBC Tunisia

Evaluation of WFP’s capacity strengthening activities to develop the School Meals

Programme 2016-2018 Activity 2019

61

12 RBC Turkey Mid-term Evaluation of Emergency Social Saftey Nets Activity 2018 74

13 RBD

Cote

d'Ivoire Evaluation of Protected Relief and Recovery Operation 200464 Operation 2018

70

14 RBD Gambia Evaluation of Development Programme 200327 Operation 2018 74

15 RBD Guinea Evaluation of Country Programme 200326 Operation 2018 61

20

16 RBD Liberia

Evaluation of USDA McGovern-Dole-funded International Food for Education and

Child Nutrition Program 2013-2016 Activity 2017

75

17 RBD Mali FAO/WFP Joint Evaluation of DEVCO-funded resilience activity in northern Mali Activity 2018 61

18 RBD Niger Evaluation of Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation 200961 Operation 2018 60

19 RBD Senegal Evaluation of CBT Modality in School Feeding Activities

Transfer

modality 2018

61

20 RBD

Sierra

Leone Evaluation of Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation 200938 Operation 2018

71

21 RBD Togo Evaluation of Capacity Strengthening in School Feeding Activity 2019 66

22 RBJ Eswatini Evaluation of National School Feeding Programme 2010-2018 Activity 2019 66

23 RBJ Lesotho

Evaluation of assessing the contribution of school feeding to developmental

objectives Activity 2018

74

24 RBJ Malawi Final Evaluation of the School Meals Programme 2013-2015 Activity 2018 76

25 RBJ Malawi

Mid-Term Evaluation of Integrated Risk Management and Climate Services

Programme 2017-2019 Activity 2019

70

26 RBJ

Republic of

Congo Mid term Evaluation of Country Programme 200648 Operation 2018

68

27 RBJ Zambia Mid term Evaluation of the Country Programme 200891 Operation 2018 66

28 RBJ Zimbabwe Evaluation of WFP’s Lean Season Assistance Activity 2017 62

29 RBN Burundi

Evaluation des programmes intégrés de cantines scolaires financés par l’Ambassade

des Pays Bas Activity 2019

73

30 RBN Ethiopia

Evaluation of McGovern Dole School Feeding Programme in Afar and Somali region

2013-2017 Activity 2018

70

31 RBN Kenya

Evaluation of USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child

Nutrition Programme 2014-2016 Activity 2017

62

32 RBN Kenya

Evaluation of the effects of GFD Cash Modality scale up for the refugees and host

community in Kakuma and Dadaab Camp

Transfer

modality 2018

63

33 RBN Kenya

Evaluation of WFP's Asset Creation Programme in Kenya's Arid and Semi-arid Areas

2009 - 2015 Activity 2016

72

21

34 RBN Rwanda

Midline Evaluation of USDA McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition

Programme Activity 2019

72

35 RBN Uganda Evaluation of WFP's Nutrition Programs in the Karamoja region 2013-2015 Activity 2016 63

36 RBP

Latin

America RB

Evaluación final del Proyecto "Respuesta al fenómeno de El Niño en el Corredor

Seco", El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua, 2016-2018 Operation 2019

74

37 RBP Bolivia Evaluation of Bolivia Country Programme 200381 Operation 2019 75

38 RBP Colombia Mid-term Evaluation of Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation 200708 Operation 2017 72

39 RBP Ecuador

Evaluacion de la respuesta del PMA para avanzar hacia un enfoque de asistencia

alimentaria vinculado a los sistemas de protección social Thematic 2018

66

40 RBP Nicaragua Evaluación del Programa País 200434 Operation 2019 75

Source: OEV Management Information System

22

Annex 2: Evaluation Timeline

WFP Synthesis of Decentralized Evaluations - Key actions Dates

Phase 1 Preparation 2020

Draft

zero

Scoping and ToR preparation Jul- Aug

D1 Revised draft ToR shared w/ IRG for feedback (window for comments until

14 September) 7-Sept

Review and discuss QA2 IRG comments received and produce final revised

draft 18 Sept

Final Final revised draft ToR shared with DoE for final clearance 21 Sept

Phase 2 Inception

Start up and team orientation

Mobilize synthesis team 28 Sep - 9 Oct

Introductory calls - synthesis team and OEV 12 Oct

Desk review of documents

Initial review of documents and e-library 12-16 Oct

Draft synthesis method note (including selection of evaluation sample) 19-30 Oct

Revise draft method note based on QA feedback

OEV review of draft synthesis method note 2-3 Nov

Synthesis Team revises draft method note 4 -6 Nov

Finalize draft method note based on DoE comments

DoE review and comment on synthesis method note 7-10 Nov

Synthesis Team revises and finalizes synthesis method note 11-13 Nov

Phase 3 - Desk review, content analysis and interviews

In-depth review of relevant information across evaluations 16-Nov – 11 Dec

Conduct content analysis and desk reviews 16-Nov – 11 Dec

Conduct interviews with IRG and other stakeholders 16-Nov – 11 Dec

Phase 4 - Reporting 2021

Draft

zero

Synthesis Team Prepares draft synthesis report (D0) 14 Dec -20 Jan 2021

EM 1st round review of draft zero synthesis report 21-21 Jan

QA2 review of the zero draft 25-26 Jan

EM compiles comments (EM + QA2 comments) and send it back to TL 27 Jan

D1 Synthesis Team revise draft synthesis report based on EM+QA2 feedback (D1) 28 - 2 Feb

EM sends D1 for DOE review with recommendation memo from QA2 DDoE comment

window

3-7 Feb

D2 Synthesis team revises and submits draft synthesis report reflecting DoE’s comments (D2)

8 – 11 Feb

EM checks and shares draft synthesis report with IRG 12 Feb

IRG comment window to review of draft 2 synthesis report IRG comment window

12 Feb – 26 Feb

23

Virtual validation and learning workshop 25 Feb

Deadline for stakeholder comments 26 Feb

OEV consolidates comments matrix and sends it to the Synthesis Team 27 Feb

D3 Synthesis Team revises and submit synthesis report (D3) and response to

comments

27 Feb - 2 Mar

EM check feedback addressed and share with QA2 2 March

QA2 review and comment on D3 synthesis report 3-4 March

Synthesis team revises and submits draft synthesis report based on QA2

comments

5 March

EM submits D3 to DoE for approval/DoE comment on D3 of Synthesis DDoE comment window

6-10 March

D4 Revise and submit draft synthesis report 11-12 March

DoE shares final draft synthesis report with OPC for comment EMG comment window

13 – 23 March

EM consolidates comments and shares with TL 24 March

Final

report Revise and submit final synthesis report 25 March

DoE review of final synthesis report DDoE final review

26-27 March

Final submission of the synthesis report to the EB Secretariat 2 April 2021

deadline EB Secretariat

Legend: DDoE: Deputy Director of Evaluation, WFP; EB: Executive Board EM: Evaluation Manager (WFP Evaluation Officer assigned to the synthesis); EMG: Executive Management Group (of WFP); IRG: Internal Reference Group; LTA: Long Term Agreement with OEV; LTA-QA: Quality Assurance review carried out by the LTA firm before submitting any interim or final deliverable; QA2: second level quality assurance in OEV RA: Research Analyst from WFP Office of Evaluation assigned to support the evaluation process; CPP: WFP Performance Management and Monitoring Division; TL: Team Leader (independent consultant/from independent evaluation firm)

24

Annex 3: WFP Internal Reference Group (IRG) composition

HQ-level IRG member (to be nominated)

Asset creation and livelihoods Bezuayehu Olana

Capacity strengthening Maria Lukyanova

C&V/ CBT Cinzia Cruciani

Climate Change Vera Mayer

Gender Cecilia Roccato

Nutrition Siti Halati

Partnerships Noemi Vorosbak

Performance measurement Natasha Nadazdin

School feeding Jutta Neitzel

Smallholder Agricultural Market Support Damien Fontaine

Social protection Sarah Laughton

South-south and triangular cooperation Andrey Shirkov

Supply Chain Graan Jaff

RB-level membership in the IRG

RB membership of the IRG includes Colleagues in the Policy / Programme Advisors role

RBB Luna Kim, Regional M&E Officer

RBC Honey Basnyat, Regional CCS focal point

RBD Agnes Ndiaye Faye, Programme Officer

RBJ Karen Rodrigue-Gervais, Regional CCS focal point

RBN Francis Opiyo, Regional CCS focal point

RBP Yasmin Swidan, Regional CCS focal point

25

Annex 4: Literature Review

Historical outlook: policy and mandate

The notion of capacity development has evolved over the past decades. The evolution went from

focusing on human resource development and individuals, to a concept that captures

individuals, organizations and the wider society. In the development dialogues, there is

acknowledgement that sustainable capacity development is a process driven by those whose

capacities are to be developed. Meaning that even though assistance plays an important part in

developing capacities, if it is imposed externally, it is less likely to develop sustainable capacities.

Therefore, the development of sustainable capacities, needs to be demand-driven.

Capacity development is a core function of the United Nations development system and has

appeared in resolutions of the General Assembly for the past two decades. The General

Assembly Resolution of 1995 A/RES/50/120 comprehensively addressed the issue of capacity

development (then referred to as capacity-building). The General Assembly notes that “….that

the objective of capacity-building and its sustainability should continue to be an essential part

of the operational activities of the United Nations system at the country level, with the aim of

integrating their activities and providing support to efforts to strengthen national capacities in

the fields of, inter alia, policy and programme formulation, development management, planning,

implementation, coordination, monitoring and review;”37

An Inter-Agency Task Team on Capacity Development was established in 2005 to support

defining the role of UNDG members in capacity development and provide guidance to UN

Country Teams (UNCTs) in supporting national capacity development strategies and identify

ways of measuring effectiveness of capacity development efforts.38 In 2006, a Position Statement

on Capacity Development was formulated to establish the overarching policy on capacity

development for UNDG members. The United Nations Development Group recognizes capacity

development as one of five key principles for UN country programming, alongside a human

rights-based approach, gender equality, environmental sustainability and results-based

management.

Capacity development in the United Nations development system

The UN provides capacity development support to national governments, global, regional, and

national institutions and organizations, with a view to maximizing country ownership and

ensuring target stakeholders can effectively, efficiently, and self-sufficiently manage and deliver

products and services to their target groups.

The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) recognizes capacity development as one of six

key programming approaches for UN integrated programming at country level, together with

results-focused programming; risk-informed programming; development, humanitarian and

peacebuilding linkages; coherent policy support and partnerships. Actors seeking to support

sustainable development need to comprehend that solid capacity must be created locally and

sustained. For this reason, the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (2017-2020), calls for

the UN development system to “support the building, development and strengthening of

37 General Assembly resolution A/RES/50/120, p.5

38 UNDG Programme Group, Enhancing the UN’s Contribution to National Capacity Development – A UNDG Position

Statement. United Nations. New York. December 2006.

26

national capacities to support development results at the country level and to promote national

ownership and leadership, in line with national development policies, plans and priorities.”

The UNDG defines39:

• Capacity as the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their

affairs successfully.

• Capacity development as “the process whereby people, organizations and society as a

whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt, and maintain capacity over time,” in order to

achieve development results.

• Capacity development support as “efforts by external individuals or organizations to

reinforce, facilitate, and catalyze capacity development.”

• Capacity assessment as “the identification of capacity assets and needs at national and

local levels,” equivalent to measuring baselines and the progress of (capacity)

development indicators. Capacities can be grouped in three levels: individual,

organizational and enabling environment, which altogether are interdependent and

mutually reinforcing.

For effective capacity development, experiences within the United Nations Development system

and elsewhere, indicate that capacity development should be addressed at all three levels and

follow a systems approach. For example, developing skills of individuals will not be effective if

policies and systems in the organization do not support the utilization of these newly acquired

skills.

In addition, it is essential to understand whose capacities are to be developed, what capacities

are to be developed, and why capacities are to be developed.40

i) Whose capacities are to be developed; General Assembly resolutions refer to ‘national

capacities’. National capacities are assumed to include the capacities of state actors, as well

as non-state actors who may or may not be involved in implementation of government

programmes and initiatives.

ii) What capacities? United Nations entities support the development of technical capacities in

their areas of specialization, for example, FAO supports capacity development of small-

scale farmers in conservation agriculture, as well as functional capacities, for example,

planning, monitoring and evaluation. UNDG guidance and agency specific guidance stress

the importance of developing technical capacities as well as functional capacities.

iii) Why develop national capacities? Capacity development is not an end in itself, but rather

seeks to contribute to development effectiveness, and in turn, impacts development

positively. Developing national capacities enables national actors to define their own

development priorities, improve national prosperity, and manage their social, economic

and environmental affairs in sustainable ways.

For most entities within the United Nations development system, capacity development is

integral to what they do and is integrated into their strategic plans and programming

documents, including the UNDAF.

39 UNDG Capacity Development Companion Guidance, 2017

40 Capacity Development: A report prepared for the United nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs for the

2016 Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review, 2015

27

Support to capacity development by United Nations entities covers technical (sector) capacities

as well as functional capacities of individuals, organizations and the wider enabling environment.

Some form of capacity assessment is usually conducted as part of country programming and

the UNDAF. In addition to supporting the development of national capacities through country

offices and regional centers where appropriate, United Nations entities facilitate South-South

and triangular cooperation as mechanisms for capacity development.

The UNDG Capacity Development Companion Guidance suggests that improving national policy

and regulatory environments and strengthening systems and institutional functions whilst

building skills, should be core objectives of integrated programming across the board and a

common approach in the pursuit of all strategic priorities. 41

Agenda 2030 speaks to the core mandate and values of the UN and presents both the

opportunity and responsibility for the UN to avail its knowledge, convening power and expertise

to nations in support of its implementation.

WFP’s Policy Framework for Capacity Development

In WFP, the progress of policies on capacity development and relevant guidance started with

“Building Country and Regional Capacities” (2004), which provided a framework for

implementing capacity development in the Strategic Plan (2004 – 2007). The 2008 WFP

Evaluation of the Capacity Development Policy and Operations42, recommended a policy update

and the inclusion of a results framework; this was undertaken in 2009.

In 2004, WFP started outlining the approach to “Building Country and Regional Capacities”43 in

order to strengthen the national institutions to help fight hunger. In 2009 the Capacity

Development Policy updated the 2004 policy document and to a certain extent remains valid, as

the WFP works towards establishing the goals for the 2030 Agenda, considering WFP’s Evaluation

of the Policy on Capacity Development of 2017 and the 2009 policy on Capacity Development.

WFP’s policy update applies internationally accepted definitions:

• “Capacity” refers to the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage

their affairs successfully.

• “Capacity development” denotes the process whereby people, organizations and society as

a whole identify, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain that ability over time.

The main highlights of the policy are44:

➢ Lives can be saved in emergencies if countries themselves have the capacity to respond

quickly, efficiently and effectively to situations of acute hunger. Lives can be rescued from

the deadly and debilitating impact of malnutrition and chronic hunger if countries that have

the will to act also have the means and capacity to do so. By working to strengthen country

and regional capacities to address acute hunger and chronic malnutrition, WFP can improve

41 UNDG Capacity Development Companion Guidance, 2017

42 WFP Evaluation of the Capacity Development Policy and Operations.

43 WFP/EB.3/2004/4-B.

44 WFP Policy on Capacity Development: An Update on Implementation (WFP/EB.2/2009/4-B) and Summary Report of

the Evaluation of WFP’s Capacity Development Policy and Operations (WFP/EB.A/2008/7).

28

its contribution to countries’ own efforts to save lives, promote development, and achieve

the first Millennium Development Goal — to end hunger.

➢ For WFP, capacities to build, develop or strengthen relate to issues of hunger and

malnutrition, especially as they affect the poorest and most vulnerable individuals and

communities. These capacities include: (i) the ability to identify and analyse hunger and

vulnerability issues; (ii) the capacity to plan and implement food assistance strategies to

eradicate hunger and improve food security; and (iii) the commitment to ensure adequate

knowledge and advocacy with regard to hunger and food-insecurity issues.

➢ WFP, in partnership with other agencies, will take a systematic approach to creating capacity

development activities that will work to build, develop and/or strengthen country and

regional capacities related to issues of hunger and malnutrition, especially as they affect the

poorest and most vulnerable individuals and communities. WFP’s comparative advantage in

undertaking any of these activities must be assessed at the country or regional level, given

its own abilities to contribute to capacity development.

The policy update was followed by an action plan for implementation of the capacity

development and hand-over components of the WFP Strategic Plan (2008– 2013) issued in 2010.

Other capacity development-related guidance documents include:

• Operational Guide to Strengthen Capacity of Nations to Reduce Hunger (2010);

• The Ability and Readiness of Nations to Reduce Hunger (Ability and Readiness Index) (2010);

• Implementing Capacity Development: WFP’s Approach to Hunger Governance and Capacity

Development (2013);

• The National Capacity Index (NCI) – Measuring Change in Capacity for Hunger Governance

in Support of Projects to Strengthen National Capacity to End Hunger (2014);

• Capacity Gaps and Needs Assessment in Support of Projects to Strengthen National Capacity

to End Hunger (2014); and

• Design and Implementation of Technical Assistance and Capacity Development (2015).

The WFP Strategic Plan (2008-2013)45 had a stand-alone Strategic Objective 5, focused on

strengthening the capacities of countries to reduce hunger, including through hand-over

strategies and local purchases. With the Strategic Plan (2014–2017) WFP incorporated capacity

development goals across each of the four Strategic Objectives. The Strategic Plan established a

foundation for partnership based on a clear understanding of common priorities, individual

roles and core strengths.

Currently, WFP operates under its Strategic Plan 2017-2021, developed as part of an Integrated

Roadmap to Zero Hunger, foreseeing enhanced approaches to its capacity strengthening and

explicit work with national partners.

WFP recognizes strong and sustained national capacities are critical to addressing the multiple

causes of hunger and responding to the food security and nutrition needs of vulnerable

populations over the long-term. Through its extensive and deep field presence, WFP brings a

solid understanding of context, beneficiary needs and local conditions, and regular contact with

a wide range of actors who are key in the design and implementation of anti-hunger initiatives.

45 WFP Strategic Plan (2008-2011) – WFP/EB.A/2008/5-A/1/Rev1, May 2008.

29

Agenda 2030 provides WFP with an opportunity to leverage this knowledge and expand its role

from one of operational partner of choice to one of strategic capacity enabling partner.”46

WFP Corporate Approach and Framework for Country Capacity Strengthening

Recognizing the need for more comprehensive and sustainable support to strengthen national

systems, WFP has developed a robust conceptual framework and operational approach for

capacity strengthening efforts that address individual, organizational and enabling environment

needs. This ensures that the technical and functional capacities created in individuals are

retained within their organizations and properly utilized in the long run.

WFP’s revised approach to CCS is grounded in ensuring partnership with, and ownership by,

national stakeholders, and recognizing existing national capacity assets. It also acknowledges

that achieving capacity strengthening results takes time and requires mutual trust and

commitment by all parties. As a result, WFP focuses heavily on ensuring that its CCS support is

demand-driven, context-appropriate and optimizes existing capacities.

WFP embraces a Whole of Society approach to zero hunger which means it engages with, and

supports capacity strengthening of a range of state and non-state actors, as relevant to

context.47 The WFP fundamentals principles in order to achieve a solid CCS can be divided into:

Partnerships: Effective partnerships are critical to effective CCS; no one organization or

government can address complex food security and nutrition challenges alone. Partnerships

beyond and across sectors and areas of expertise are critical.

Ownership: Capacity strengthening cannot be imposed from the outside. Consensus and

partnership with countries are the most critical elements of capacity strengthening and facilitate

constructive approaches to reaching capacity goals and achieving sustainable results.

Recognition: Identifying and recognizing existing capacity assets is critical to effective CCS; if

interventions do not build on the national/local capacities already in place, the integrity of

development achievements can be compromised and progress can remain rootless, illusory and

vulnerable48.

Trust: The relationships WFP establishes based on mutual trust and commitment will be more

important to the long-term success of its CCS activities than the plans themselves.

Time: CCS requires time, commitment, investment and patience on all sides, flexibility to

recognize changing needs over time and acceptance of its complexity.

WFP recognizes that country capacity strengthening is all about supporting national systems and

services and that the achievement of national development targets hinges on capacities of

individuals, organizations and societies to transform in order to reach development objectives.

Without supportive laws, policies, strategies and procedures (enabling environment), well-

functioning organizations (organizational domain), and educated, skilled people (individual

domain) state and non-state duty bearers cannot effectively plan, implement and review their

46 WFP Corporate Approach to Country Capacity Strengthening (CCS).

47 WFP Capacity Strengthening Supports Nations to End Hunger, 2018.

30

efforts to deliver intended products and services to their target groups. Effective CCS support

must therefore address all three domains, recognizing the interdependencies between them.

Single interventions (e.g., trainings) are not likely to make a significant difference unless they

represent a key leverage point that can shift an entire system’s behavior.

With these fundamentals’ principles in mind, WFP supports stakeholder capacities along a critical

pathway. This framework helps systematically identify capacity assets, gaps and priorities along

five dimensions that are critical to effective national response systems, and relates to: Policies

and legislation; institutional effectiveness and accountability; strategic planning and financing;

stakeholder programme design, delivery & M&E; engagement and participation of communities,

civil society and private sector.49

WFP has developed a series of innovative tools to help operationalize the CCS framework.

Between 2016 and the present, these tools have been field-tested, adjusted and validated by

WFP colleagues on the ground in over 20 countries. The tools include comprise of: a one page

quick reference guide for country-office and stakeholders listing 15 critical steps to facilitate

participatory, multi-stakeholder engagement around CCS; and exercise sheet that help WFP and

stakeholders create a detailed road map for implementing the entire process; a sheet that

guides parties in articulating clear and coherent “Capacity Outcome Statements”; a capacity

needs mapping template to guide parties through a systematic assessment of existing capacities

to define baselines conditions; the database of country capacity strengthening.

49 WFP corporate Approach to Country Capacity Strengthening.

31

Annex 5: E-library

Year

WFP sources

EVALUATIONS INCLUDED IN THE SYNTHESIS SCOPE

Full set of evaluations included in the scope 2016-2020

Full set of management responses issued in response to these evaluation 2016-2020

Implementation status of follow-up actions to recommendations 2020

COUNTRY STRATEGIC PLANS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS

Country Strategic Plan or Interim Country Strategic Plan document for all

countries included in the scope

Project documents related to the evaluation reports included in the scope

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT/ COUNTRY CAPACITY STRENGTHENING (CCS)

Capacity Development Policy - An Update on Implementation 2009 2009

Operational Guide to Strengthen the Capacity of Nations to Reduce Hunger 2010

National Capacity Index 2014

Guidelines on Technical Assistance and Capacity Development 2015

WFP Corporate Framework for CCS 2016

WFP Theory of Change for CCS 2017

WFP Capacity Needs Mapping for CCS 2017

Guidance on Capacity Strengthening of Civil Society 2017

Capacity Development Policy 2009 _Evaluation, Annexes and Management

Response

2017

Capacity Strengthening Supports Nations to End Hunger 2019

Country Capacity Strengthening - COVID-19 Immediate Guidance 2020

CCS RBP and RBD workshops documentation

Guidance on How to Engage National Counterparts in Line with COVID-19

Response

2020

SCHOOL FEEDING

Revised School Feeding Policy 2013

School Meals Monitoring Framework Guidance 2017

Smart School Meals 2017

Schools, health and nutrition. COVID-19 makes us rethink of education 2020

A chance for every schoolchild - WFP School Feeding Strategy 2020 - 2030 2020

CASH AND VOUCHER

Cash and voucher Policy 2008

Cash and voucher Policy Evaluation, Annexes and Management Response 2014

CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY

Corporate Partnership Strategy (2014 - 2017) 2014

Corporate Partnership Strategy (2014-2017) Evaluation, Annexes and

Management Response

2017

GENDER

Gender policy 2009 & 2015

Gender Policy 2009 Evaluation, Annexes and Management Response

HUMANITARIAN PRINCIPLES

Policy on Humanitarian Principles and Access 2018

32

NUTRITION

Nutrition Policy 2012 &2017

Nutrition Policy 2012, Evaluation, Annexes and Management Response 2015

SAFETY NETS

Update of WFP's Safety Nets Policy 2012

Evaluation of the Update of WFP's Safety Nets Policy 2019

SOUTH-SOUTH AND TRIANGULAR COOPERATION

South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC) Policy 2015

Terms of Reference – Evaluation of the South-South and Triangular Cooperation

(SSTC) Policy

2020

WFP EVALUATION SYNTHESES AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES

Annual and Regional Operation Evaluations Series

Annual Synthesis of OpeEval 2013-2017 2017

RBB OpeEval Series Regional Synthesis 2017

RBC OpeEval Series Regional Synthesis 2017

RBD OpeEval Series Regional Synthesis 2017

RBJ OpeEval Series Regional Synthesis 2017

RBN OpeEval Series Regional Synthesis 2017

RBP OpeEval Series Regional Synthesis 2017

Policy Evaluations

Synthesis report of WFP’s policy evaluations (2011–2019) and Management

response

2020

CPEs in Africa

Synthesis report of WFP’s country portfolio evaluations in Africa (2016–2018) and

Management response

2019

ANNUAL EVALUATION REPORTS

Annual evaluation reports 2016-2019

AUDIT REPORTS

Capacity development

Internal Audit of WFP’s Country Capacity Strengthening, Desk review and

Management comment

2016

WFP STRATEGIC PLANS AND RELATED DOCS

WFP Strategic Plan (2014-2017) and related docs 2014-2017

WFP Strategic Plan (2017-2021) (IRM) and related docs 2017-2021

Mid-Term Review of WFP Strategic Plan (2017-2021) 2020

WFP Revised Corporate Results Framework 2018

WFP Mid-term Review of the Revised Corporate Results Framework 2020

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS

Annual Performance Reports 2016-2019

MOPAN

MOPAN WFP Report 2019

MOPAN WFP Brief 2019

33

Annex 6: Communication and learning plan

Internal (WFP) Communications Plan

When

Evaluation

phase

What

Communication

product/

information

To whom

Target

group or

individual

What level

Organizational

level

of

communication

e.g. strategic,

operational

From whom

Lead OEV staff with

name/position + other OEV

staff views

How

Communication

means

When Why

Purpose of

communication

Preparation HQ,

RB and CO

(as needed)

Consultation Andrea Cook, DoE

Francesca Bonino (OIC), QA2

Federica Zelada EM

Consultations,

meetings, emails

Aug/ Sep 2020 Review/feedback

For information

TOR Draft ToR

Final ToR

HQ

HQ

Strategic Anne-Claire Luzot, DDoE

Deborah McWhinney, QA2

Federica Zelada EM

Emails

Web

Sep. 2019 Review / feedback

For information

Desk review/

Analysis/

Synthesis

Aide-

memoire/PPT

OEV Operational Federica Zelada EM Emails,

Meetings at

HQ

Dec 2020 Sharing preliminary

findings. Opportunity

for verbal

clarifications

Synthesis

Report

D1 HQ Operational &

Strategic

Federica Zelad EM

email Jan 2021 Review / feedback

Final Report HQ,

RB and CO

(as needed)

Strategic Anne-Claire Luzot, DDoE

Deborah McWhinney, QA2

Federica Zelada EM

email Feb / March 2020 Review / feedback

(EMG on SR)

Post-report/EB 2-page synthesis

brief

HQ RB and

CO

Informative Anne-Claire Luzot, DDoE

Deborah McWhinney, QA2

Federica Zelada EM

email March

2020

Dissemination of

evaluation findings

and

conclusions

Throughout Sections in

brief/PPT

or other briefing

materials

HQ

RB and CO

(as needed)

Informative &

Strategic

Anne-Claire Luzot, DDoE

Deborah McWhinney, QA2

Federica Zelada EM

Email, in-person

interactions

As opportunities

arise (roughly every

1.5 month)

Information about

linkage to Strategy

Evaluations and

34

other new / ongoing

Policy Evaluations

35

External Communications

When Phase of the synthesis plus planned month/year

What Communication product/ information

To whom Target organization or individual

From whom Evaluation management, evaluation team, etc.

How Communication means

Why Purpose of communication

TOR, Sept 2020 Final ToR Public OEV Website Public information

Reporting, edited version March 2021

Final report and

Management

Response

Public OEV and RMP Website Public

information

Evaluation Brief, June 2021

2-page evaluation brief

Board members

and wider Public

OEV Website Public information

EB Annual Session, June 2021

Synthesis summary Board members OEV & RMP Formal presentation

For EB consideration